U.S. House Votes Show Acceptance of Racial Profiling of Latinos, Minorities
The House of Representatives told us on Wednesday thatthe majority of members are okay with state-sanctioned racial profiling of Latinos.
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) slipped in an amendment to the FY2013 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill that would prohibit the Department of Justice from originating or joining any legal challenge to nine specified state anti-immigrant laws, many of which are racial profiling laws in thin disguise. These include laws passed by Arizona, Alabama, Utah and South Carolina, where DOJ already has pending litigation, including at the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as Georgia and Indiana laws which the ACLU has challenged in court. Missouri and Oklahoma, where two omnibus anti-immigrant laws have been in effect for several years, are also included. While the Black Amendment doesn’t affect pending DOJ litigation, the amendment would handcuff DOJ from making future litigation choices consistent with the executive branch’s responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
The final vote on Rep. Black’s Amendment was 238 ayes; 173 noes, with 226 Republicans in favor of the amendment, and 167 Democrats against.
Later on Wednesday, a majority of the House voted against an innocuous amendment by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), which simply stated as a legislative reminder that DOJ funds, including grants to state and local police, should not be used in contravention of long-established racial profiling protections. These include the Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other statutory prohibitions on discrimination and unlawful police pattern or practice activity. This amendment would have been a baby step toward tackling the epidemic of racial profiling – it contains none of the more robust protections in the proposed End Racial Profiling Act.
The final vote on Rep. Holt’s amendment was 193 ayes; 232 noes, with 224 Republicans against the amendment and 177 Democrats in support.
These votes can only mean one thing: a majority ofHouse members don’t see the need for DOJ to take racial profiling seriously.
Ironically, the Housetook these damaging votesthe day before DOJ did something it has done only once before in the Department’s 18-year history of civil police reform work. Today DOJ filed a contested suit against Maricopa County, Arizona, to stop discriminatory and unconstitutional law enforcement practices targeting Latinos. After nearly four years of trying to forge solutions, DOJ had no choice but to sue Maricopa County to ensure that “the necessary policies, practices and oversight are in place so that Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Arpaio comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” said Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at a press conference in Phoenix on May 10th.
Perez continued, “Law enforcement agencies cannot cut constitutional corners in the pursuit of their objectives, and the complaint alleges that from at least 2006 to the present, MCSO officers have unlawfully discriminated against Latinos and violated their constitutional rights in a number of ways, including racial profiling of Latinos in traffic stop settings; unlawful detention, searches and arrests of Latino drivers and passengers; and unlawful targeting and illegal detention of Latinos during home and worksite raids.…If you looked Latino, you were all too frequently fair game for MCSO officers.”
The DOJ’s filing of this lawsuit proves the department takes its role in stopping rampant racial profiling seriously. Congress should support the DOJ’s role in protecting the constitutional rights of those subjected racial profiling, not tie the department’s hands as the House has with the Black amendment.
It is now up to the Senate to ensure that the Black amendment doesn’t become law. And both houses should pass the , legislation sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Rep. John Conyers, (D-Mich.) which would, among other things, provide training to help police avoid responses based on stereotypes and unreliable assumptions about minorities.
Learn more about anti-immigrant laws: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.